Incorporating Safety into
the Transportation Planning
Process
62nd Illinois Traffic Engineering
and Safety Conference
October 23, 2013
Traffic Safety
• Traffic safety is one of the most important
characteristics of transportation system performance.
Therefore, one would expect that safety is well
integrated into all aspects of an agency’s planning
and decision-making processes. However, in many
instances, such is not the case.
• A comprehensive and effective consideration of
safety in transportation-planning would result in
traffic safety improvements for the region.
CUUATS Integration of Safety
into the Planning Process
• The purpose of this presentation is to
provide overall direction on how safety is
integrated into the CUUATS
transportation-planning process.
CUUATS’ Safety Approach
• Integrate safety into all aspects of the
transportation planning process.
• Identify safety as a major LRTP goal and be
committed to safety.
• Define specific objectives & performance
measures & strategies to achieve safety goals.
• As an MPO, assist local member agencies
addressing their highway safety problems &
needs.
CUUATS’ Safety Approach
• Use current technologies (e.g., GIS) to provide
timely & accurate information, especially in the
areas of data collection and analysis.
• Develop community-based traffic safety
programs.
• Create a safety committee. This committee helps
to ensure the timeliness, accuracy, and linkage of
data and help to avoid duplication of efforts.
• Develop a comprehensive safety program that
includes a range of strategies & actions &
involves different agencies & groups.
CUUATS Transportation
Planning Process (Safety)
IDOT Crash
Records
Geometric
Features
Traffic
Counts
Engineering
Education
Preferred
Scenario
Long Term Safety
Recommendations
Enforcement
EMS
LRTP
Mission
LRTP Goals
LRTP
Objectives
Performance
Measures
Data Analysis
Crash Analysis,
Network
Screening, etc.
Proposed
Strategies
Planning
HSIP
TIP
Evaluation
Operations
Implementation
Long Range Transportation Plan 2035:
Mission Statement
• LRTP 2035 Mission:
– To provide a safe, efficient, and economical
transportation system that makes the best use
of existing infrastructure, optimizes mobility,
promotes environmental sensitivity,
sustainability, accessibility, economic
development, and enhances quality of life for
all users.
Long Range Transportation Plan 2035:
Goals
• SAFETEA-LU/MAP-21 Planning Factor
#2
– Increase the safety of the transportation
system for motorized and non-motorized
users
• Goal 3:
– Transportation modes and facilities in the
urbanized area will be safe for all users
Long Range Transportation Plan 2035:
Objectives & Performance Measures
• Objective:
– Reduce the total number of crashes in ChampaignUrbana by 5% by 2014
• Performance Measure:
– Total Crashes per 100M VMT
• Objective:
– Reduce the total number of fatalities and severe injuries
in Champaign-Urbana by 25% between 2009 and 2014
• Performance Measures:
– Total Fatalities per 100M VMT
– Total Severe Injuries per 100M VMT
Long Range Transportation Plan 2035:
Objectives & Performance Measures
• Objective:
– Reduce the total number of crashes involving bicyclists
and pedestrians in Champaign-Urbana by 15% by 2014
• Performance Measures:
– Total Pedestrian Crashes
– Total Bicycle Crashes
Suggestions for deciding about
performance measures
• Review safety-related performance measures
used by similar agencies in the U.S.
• Prepare a list of typical safety-related
performance measures that reflect the goals &
objectives defined in your planning effort.
• Discuss the proposed performance measures
with those in the agency responsible for
collecting the data to ensure feasibility of
collection and data accuracy.
Data Analysis
• Effective data analysis relies on the
availability and use of accurate/reliable
data.
• Data analysis is also important for
identifying “hot spots” for traffic safety.
CUUATS Crash Data Analysis Process
Tools for Data Analysis
• Inventory the types of safety analysis tools that
exist in the state or metropolitan area’s safetyrelated agencies.
• Develop a long term and coordinated datacollection and safety analysis strategy for the
metropolitan area.
• Use crash reduction factors and their associated
reductions in crashes & fatalities for different types
of safety improvements.
Total Crashes per 100 MVMT
LTRP 2035 Objective: Reduce the
total number of crashes in
Champaign- Urbana by 5% by 2014.
Performance Measure: Total
crashes per 100 M VMT
Data Analysis: The total number of
crashes decreased 10.3% from
2,264 in 2009 to 2,030 in 2011 and
crash rates declined 8.3% in the
same period. The VMT in the region
decreased 2.2% between 2009 and
2011.
Performance Measure Results:
Positive rating due to the 8.3 %
reduction in total crashes per 100 M
VMT since 2009. This is 3.3%
higher than the target of 5%
decrease in crashes in the
urbanized area by 2014.
VMT and Total Crash Rates in Champaign-Urbana
Year
Daily VMT
(Thousands)
Yearly VMT
(100 Millions)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2,335
2,368
2,426
2,425
2,372
852.3
864.3
885.9
885.49
866.14
Crashes per 100M
VMT
Champaign
Illinois
-Urbana
358.3
393.6
333.4
386.5
255.7
276.5
246.4
273.6
234.5
272.6
Total Crashes per 100 Million VMT
Fatalities per 100 Million VMT
LRTP 2035 Objective: Reduce the number of fatalities in Champaign-Urbana by
25% between 2009 and 2014.
Performance Measure: Total fatalities per 100 M VMT.
Data Analysis: Number of fatalities in the urbanized area dropped from 8 in 2008
to 4 in 2009 but increase back to 6 in 2011.
Performance Measure Results: Negative rating for year 2011 because the
fatalities per 100 M VMT increased from 0.45 in 2009 to 0.69 in 2011.
Traffic Fatalities in Champaign-Urbana
Traffic Fatalities per 100 Million VMT
Fatal Crash Locations in
Champaign-Urbana
Corridor Analysis
Crashes along Major Corridors in Champaign-Urbana
Crashes
Fatalitie
s
Total
Injuries
A-Injury
Crashes
B-Injury
Crashes
C-Injury
Crashes
673
2
241
46
61
60
University Ave
1,110
3
355
67
112
78
Springfield Ave
938
2
280
49
82
79
Kirby Ave/Florida Ave
707
2
227
42
68
56
Windsor Rd
355
1
150
21
47
37
833
1
296
47
84
58
1,094
1
307
42
79
102
Neil St
944
0
291
39
99
60
Lincoln Ave
676
0
185
32
72
47
Cunningham Ave/Vine St
592
1
188
31
78
38
High Cross Road/IL 130
86
1
39
10
12
5
Total
8,008
14
2,559
426
794
620
Roadway
East-West Corridor
Bradley Ave
North-South Corridor
Mattis Ave
Prospect Ave
University Avenue Crash
Statistics
Fatal and Severe Crashes along
Major Corridors
Tools for Data Analysis
• For non-infrastructure or non-traffic operations
strategies, such as safety education,
marketing campaigns, & emergency
management services, work closely with safety
partner organizations to determine a
methodology for assessing the effectiveness of
such strategies. This might include targeted
before and after studies on selected programs.
Evaluation
• Most safety-related evaluation efforts use
one of three methods:
1. Listing the evaluation criteria and show
how the alternatives compare
2. Assigning weights or scores to the
evaluation factors
3. Conducting cost-benefit analysis
HSIP Application
County Road 1
1. Listing the evaluation criteria and show how the
alternatives compare
Proposed Mitigation Measures
SAFETY ISSUE
PROPOSED MITIGATION
The absence of paved shoulders and rumble
strips on roadways may increase the risk of
run-off the road crashes.
Purchase right-of-way in order to provide
wider shoulders along roadway. Install
shoulder rumble strips throughout corridor.
The presence of steep ditches close to the
edge of the pavement may increase the risk
of vehicle overturns.
Provide and widen shoulder along roadway
with gentle slopes and increase separation of
ditches from the edge of the roadway.
High speeds on the roadway may increase
the risk of side swipe and animal crashes.
Improve roadway signing and enhanced
pavement markings, including raised
reflective markings and centerline rumble
strips.
Vehicles traveling at high speeds on County
Road 1 may not be expecting upcoming
intersections, and sharp horizontal curves
increasing the risk of angle crashes.
Reduce approach speeds at intersections by
effectively reducing the lane width (narrowing
intersections).
Improve warning signs along corridor.
Provide chevrons along the curves.
CUUATS Project Assessment
Guidelines for TIP
2. Assigning weights or scores to the evaluation factors
Safety Improvements (*)
Definition and Goals
SAFETEA-LU and the LRTP both place emphasis on ensuring the safety of all transportation system users. Because
CUUATS believes that safety is one of the greatest concerns to be considered when planning the region’s transportation
system, it is included as a project evaluation criterion.
Criteria and Requirements
This criterion is consistent with the procedure used to select crash intersection locations (SCIL) in the urbanized area.
Therefore, all the variables considered to determine the priority rating for those locations will be used to assign points
under this criterion. (See Appendix 1 for SCIL methodology). Highest score if project has significant immediate public
safety benefit as identified in the Safety Analysis. The performance measure is the "Priority Level” according to SCIL
methodology. A project can match only one category and can earn a maximum score of 10.
Category
Project Score
10
8
6
4
2
Project site has a very high average crash frequency, very high average crash rate and high average
crash severity. The project has safety improvement as its prime objective
Project site has a high average crash frequency, very high average crash rate and high average crash
severity. The project has safety improvement as its prime objective
Project site has a high average crash frequency, high average crash rate and moderate average crash
severity. The project has safety improvement as its prime objective
Project site has an above mean average crash frequency and above mean average crash rate. The
project has safety improvement as a prime objective
Provides some improvement to road user safety. Safety improvement is stated in the objectives
HSIP Application
County Road 1
3. Conducting cost-benefit analysis
PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PROJECT DATA INPUT (SEGMENTS)
Project:
County Road 1
District:
Prepared by:
5
County:
Key Route:
Champaign
Mark ed Route:
Rita Morocoima-Black
City:
Date
MilePost:
Current AADT:
3850
Length (miles):
10.75
Traffic Growth factor
1.0%
Interest rate
4.0%
Messages
2/28/2013
The combined effect of multiple countermeasures is limited to 0.60 or the smallest CMF.
2.1.9.S1.1 - Pavement Treatments - Rumble Strips (Centerline) AADT is not within HSM limits
Location Description:
County Road 1 between Champaign city limits and US136
Crash data:
Peer Group:
5
Years
From
2007
to
2.1.9.S1.1 - Pavement Treatments - Rumble Strips (Centerline) AADT is not within HSM limits
2011
Peer Group 1 - Rural Two-Lane Highway
Animal
Fixed Object
Head On
Left Turn
Other Noncollision
Other Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Pedalcyclist
Parked Vehicle
Rear End
Right Turn
Sideswipe Same Direction
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Turning
Train
Night Time
Wet Pavement
ALL
AG
AN
FO
HO
LT
OtherNC
OtherO
OVT
1
2
4
1
7
PD
PDC
PKV
RE
RT
SSD
SOD
T
TR
NGT
WP
1
4
1
2
1
7
5
14
4
1
5
2
1
1
1
2
1
SEGMENTS BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS
BENEFIT CALCULATIONS
COUNTERMEASURE
TOTAL BENEFIT
BENEFIT/ COST
* CMF = Crash Modification Factor
** EUAC = Estimated Uniform Annual Cost
COUNTERMEASURE COST CALCULATIONS
CMF *
$838,995
8.00
Unit Cost
Quantity
Units
Total Cost
Service Life
Present worth
EUAC **
0.67
ROR, FO, HO, OVT, SOD, SSD
Crash Type affected by this improvement
$15,000
10
Miles
$150,000
12
$150,000
$13,491
0.78
FO, OVT
$7,000
21.5
Miles
$150,500
8
$260,469
$23,427
0.97
All
$40,000
10.75
Miles
$430,000
15
$430,000
$38,675
0.80
All
$20,000
4
Unit Qnty
$80,000
3
$320,520
$28,828
B/C 8.00
ANNUAL NUMBER OF FATALITIES POTENTIALLY PREVENTED
TOTAL COST
0.08
$104,421
Total
Angle
Crash Severity
Fatal Crashes
A-Injury Crashes
B-Injury Crashes
C-Injury Crashes
PDO Crashes
All Crashes
Crash Type
SEGMENTS CRASH SEVERITY DISTRIBUTION BY CRASH TYPE FOR ANALYSIS PERIOD
TOT
1
4
19
3
41
Plan and Program Development
Strategies included in the LRTP and UTWP
• Produce the Selected Crash Intersection
Locations (SCIL) report every two years
• Evaluate intersections that have problematic or
crash-inducing patterns and identify solutions
• Improve visibility for all roadway users through
improved lighting, striping, signage, visibility
triangles, and access control
Plan and Program Development
• Continue educational programs for CUUATS
member agencies as well as law enforcement
officers about safety issues
• Continue educational programs for grades K-12
including driver’s education and safety programs
such as Operation Cool
• Continue educational safety programs for the
community including drivers, bicyclists &
pedestrians
System Monitoring
• LRTP 2035 Report Card
• Monticello Road HSIP Project: Before and
After
Collision Type
Angle
Animal
Fixed Object
Overturned
Rear End
Turning
Sideswipe Opposite
Other
Total
Crash Severity
Befor
e
1
0
8
5
5
3
After
5
1
1
1
5
4
Change
3
1
-7
-4
0
1
1
1
24
2
2
19
1
1
-5
Collision Type Distribution: Before and
After
Before
After
Fatal Crashes
1
-
A- Injuries Crashes
1
3
B - Injuries Crashes
5
5
C - Injuries Crashes
2
1
PDO Crashes
15
10
Crash Severity: Before and After
Thanks!
Questions?